Proteinase 3 promotes formation of multinucleated giant cells and granuloma-like structures in patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis

OBJECTIVES: Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) are autoimmune vasculitides associated with antineutrophil cytoplasm antibodies that target proteinase 3 (PR3) or myeloperoxidase (MPO) found within neutrophils and monocytes. Granulomas are exclusively found in GPA and form around multinucleated giant cells (MGCs), at sites of microabscesses, containing apoptotic and necrotic neutrophils. Since patients with GPA have augmented neutrophil PR3 expression, and PR3-expressing apoptotic cells frustrate macrophage phagocytosis and cellular clearance, we investigated the role of PR3 in stimulating giant cell and granuloma formation. METHODS: We stimulated purified monocytes and whole peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from patients with GPA, patients with MPA or healthy controls with PR3 or MPO and visualised MGC and granuloma-like structure formation using light, confocal and electron microscopy, as well as measuring the cell cytokine production. We investigated the expression of PR3 binding partners on monocytes and tested the impact of their inhibition. Finally, we injected zebrafish with PR3 and characterised granuloma formation in a novel animal model. RESULTS: In vitro, PR3 promoted monocyte-derived MGC formation using cells from patients with GPA but not from patients with MPA, and this was dependent on soluble interleukin 6 (IL-6), as well as monocyte MAC-1 and protease-activated receptor-2, found to be overexpressed in the cells of patients with GPA. PBMCs stimulated by PR3 formed granuloma-like structures with central MGC surrounded by T cells. This effect of PR3 was confirmed in vivo using zebrafish and was inhibited by niclosamide, a IL-6-STAT3 pathway inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a mechanistic basis for granuloma formation in GPA and a rationale for novel therapeutic approaches

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Covid-19 and acute kidney injury in hospital: summary of NICE guidelines

Acute kidney injury (AKI), a sudden reduction in kidney function, is seen in some people with covid-19 infection. A subset of patients develop severe AKI and require renal replacement therapy (RRT). As in many settings, the development of AKI is associated with an increased risk of mortality.1 2 Although our understanding is incomplete, a picture is emerging from case reports and autopsy series of covid-19 specific causes of AKI. Intrinsic renal pathology including thrombotic vascular processes, viral mediated tubular cell injury, and glomerulonephritis have been reported, as well as AKI resulting from extrinsic factors such as fluid depletion, multi-organ failure, and rhabdomyolysis.3-7 Anecdotal reports have emerged of proximal tubular injury with Fanconi syndrome that manifests as hypokalaemia, hypophosphataemia, normal anion gap metabolic acidosis, and hypovolaemia from salt wasting. Importantly, AKI can occur at all stages of covid-19 infection, so clinical vigilance and consideration of risk factors for AKI alongside early detection and diagnosis are essential components of general supportive care. Fluid management is central to this. This article summarises key points from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) covid-19 rapid guideline on AKI in hospital

Diagnostic performance of a point-of-care saliva urea nitrogen dipstick to screen for kidney disease in low-resource settings where serum creatinine is unavailable.

Kidney disease is prevalent in low-resource settings worldwide, but tests for its diagnosis are often unavailable. The saliva urea nitrogen (SUN) dipstick is a laboratory and electricity independent tool, which may be used for the detection of kidney disease. We investigated the feasibility and performance of its use in diagnosing kidney disease in community settings in Africa. Adult patients at increased risk of kidney disease presenting to three community health centres, a rural district hospital and a central hospital in Malawi were recruited between October 2016 and September 2017. Patients underwent concurrent SUN and creatinine testing at enrolment, and at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months thereafter. Of 710 patients who presented at increased risk of kidney disease, 655 (92.3%) underwent SUN testing at enrolment, and were included (aged 38 (29-52) years, 367 (56%) female and 333 (50.8%) with HIV). Kidney disease was present in 482 (73.6%) patients and 1479 SUN measurements were made overall. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) correlated with SUN (r=-0.39; p&lt;0.0001). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.61 for presenting SUN to detect acute or chronic kidney disease, and 0.87 to detect severe (eGFR &lt;15 mL/min/1.73 m2) kidney disease (p&lt;0.0001; sensitivity 82.3%, specificity 81.8%, test accuracy 81.8%). In-hospital mortality was greater if enrolment SUN was elevated (&gt;test pad #1) compared with patients with non-elevated SUN (p&lt;0.0001; HR 3.3 (95% CI 1.7 to 6.1). SUN, measured by dipstick, is feasible and may be used to screen for kidney disease in low resource settings where creatinine tests are unavailable

Evaluating the pedagogical effectiveness of study preregistration in the undergraduate dissertation: A Registered Report

Research shows that questionable research practices (QRPs) are present in undergraduate final-year dissertation projects. One entry-level Open Science practice proposed to mitigate QRPs is ‘study preregistration’, through which researchers outline their research questions, design, method and analysis plans prior to data collection and/or analysis. In this study, we aimed to empirically test the effectiveness of preregistration as a pedagogic tool in undergraduate dissertations using a quasi-experimental design. A total of 89 UK psychology students were recruited, including students who preregistered their empirical quantitative dissertation (n = 52; experimental group) and those who did not (n = 37; control group). Attitudes towards statistics, acceptance of QRPs, and perceived understanding of Open Science were measured both pre- and post-dissertation. Exploratory measures included capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) to engage with preregistration, measured at Time 1 only. This study was conducted as a Registered Report; Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/9hjbw (date of in-principle acceptance: 21/09/2021). Contrary to hypotheses, study preregistration did not significantly impact attitudes towards statistics or acceptance of QRPs. However, students who preregistered reported greater perceived understanding of Open Science concepts from Time 1 to Time 2, compared with students who did not preregister. Exploratory analyses indicated that students who preregistered reported significantly greater capability, opportunity, and motivation to preregister. Qualitative responses revealed that preregistration was perceived to improve clarity and organisation of the dissertation, prevent QRPs, and promote rigour. Disadvantages and barriers included time, perceived rigidity, and need for training. These results contribute to timely discussions surrounding the utility of embedding Open Science principles into research training

Instrument cultural adaptations and translations

This component survey translations for Arabic, Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene, and Turkish